Feel free to add, if you think i should work on them
- Holy Roman Empire
- Roman Emperors (help add material!)
- Arnulf of Metz
- Arnulf of Carinthia
- Hanseatic League
- League of Schmalkald or Schmalkaldic League?
Give serious thought to leaving the wikipedia (although not the Nu). Why? because it exhausts me. I started in here because I thought this was a great project. Here waas a place that all kinds of people could contribute to a truly useful resource. There are lots of people who feel that way and who, even though they are not certified experts in a particular field (so to speak), really put some effort into real research and producing solid (shall we say, scholarly?)stuff. I enjoy working with these people, like Manning, SGilbert, AxelBoldt, SJK, et al, because I learn from them and am encouraged by them to do well. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, I have found myself drawn more and more into stupid-ass discussions that shouldn't exist in the first place. There are so many people out there who seem to think that all sources are equal and that this is a place for them to try cleverly to insert their very biased opinions (Mssrs Byron and Poor are prime examples) that i am now drawn to the wikipedia with dread, rather than happy anticipation. Sorry, guys, but the fun is gone. I'll be taking a break for the weekend (if I can -- I am an addict) -- or at least until we see some kind of standards enforced. Michael, my especial apologies to you. Maybe I'll spend the break writing something worthwhile, after doing real bookwork, and upload it when I'm done. Not that it will matter anyway, because the axe-grinders will just jump in and change it.
polymaths of the world, you have nothing to lose but your spare time!
This really, really concerns me. Maybe you could write to me directly, JHK?
When people like Julie are ready to quit because they're having to deal with axe-grinders and other nonsense constantly, I'm very much concerned. Frankly, she's too important to lose. --LMS
My sentiments entirely. We really do need a mechanism, (possibly a flying picket of the Wikipedia militia?), to give valuable contributors such as JHK protection from the nonsense-peddlars. sjc
Me too, ironically. If my participation will make a major contributor abandon, the 'pedia, I would be better for me to leave instead. Meanwhile, I've taken Taw's pledge and fallen back to light copyediting and posing questions on talk pages. --Ed Poor
Julie, I'm really sorry that Wikipedia hasn't been fun for you lately. Let other people tour the Prussian lands for a while. You know, you could work on articles you enjoy and never bother with axe-grinders again; Wikipedia's accuracy is not your responsibility, not even in the history section. :) I'd be very sorry to see you go for good, but even more sorry if Wikipedia becomes nothing but a source of frustration to you. --STG
Yes, J, do stay. Do what I do -- wander off into the really obscure corners of history and talk about specific people or things where no-one will care to gainsay you. Portland Vase, anyone? :) Then when one feels rested and ornery you can look for the accumulated grossness of the axegrinders and kill it all in one swell foop.
The beauty of Wikipedia, I've found, is that there's usually only one axe-grinder per subject and so many others who are on the right side like yourself. There's no need to fix it all one's-self. Somebody will get to it, sooner or later. -- Paul Drye
I suspect what would help improve such situations the best would be to provide mechanisms which encourage good scholarship by, for example, making it easier to provide references, etc.
That way if work was supported by references, the entry would reflect that. Then it would be easy for anyone to see who was contributing supportable content and who wasn't.
And we wouldn't have to make other rules or strict "this is a good article" policies or call people axe-grinders, etc.--they'd be self-identifying.
I hope you're not too frustrated. Giving up for a while on problem areas isn't so bad. I recommend keeping a record of versions of articles that you like, though, since the Revisions history is so brief. BTW, you do great work. And Mr. Drye's Portland Vase article is very nice.